DNC moves to change debate rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

Calling it concern is silly. I’m commenting. The DNC can make these rules for whatever reason they like, it’s their sandbox. I along with millions watched Kamala fade under Tulsi’s attacks on stage. The DNC won’t let her get a chance to repeat anything like that with the two that are left.

Kamala Harris has a better chance of one day being a President with a D next to her name than Gabbard ever will.

She has no path to the nomination.

I’m sure you’re right that Kamala has a better chance especially if nobody repeats what Tulsi did to her in future debates.

I’m commenting specifically on the notion that she was ineffective in debates. Politics is crazy and messy -just look at the different rationales Bloomberg gave for getting in then staying in then leaving (stopping one/helping one/etc). If the DNC had assurances she’d solely attack Bernie, I’m betting they’d let her on stage. Of course I’m just hypothesizing about that.

Kamala Harris was never a front runner or a real contender. Neither is Gabbard.

The difference is that Harris has a much better chance of one day becoming President than Gabbard ever will.

I do find the concern about the DNC debate rules to be interesting when the main base of support for Gabbard seems to some Somoans and Republicans,

[LucyLou]

@WuWei

How is she supposed to get delegates when they changed the rules to keep her out of the debate?

She was already in debates. Same as the others, didn’t win enough primaries or delegates to get anywhere.

[LucyLou]

@Snow96

@westaussie

Yes there was.

Really?

Didn’t look like it from the results on Super Tuesday. Seem’s like no one really wanted Billionair boy. They had to change the rules for him to get into the debate PERIOD. He didn’t qualify, but the DNC needed him so they changed the rules.

And if so, so what?

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

If she gets into the debate and shines . . . .

She has been in earlier debates.

Did she shine then?

Kamala Harris probably has an answer you won’t agree with.

One good debate on stage and she fought dirty enough to cut down a larger candidate.

THIS is why she’s a no go. Most primary candidates know to debate without causing too much future harm to their rivals but she can’t be trusted to hold back.

Those in charge must keep her from standing next to Joe and Bernie at all costs so if changing rules at every turn is necessary then that is what they’ll do.

All of this is countered with the fact that Gabbard has zero path to gaining the nomination

I appreciate the concern about the inner workings of the DNC, but there is no reason as of this date to tailor the rules to include someone who has zero chance.

Especially if she has a good debate which was what I responded to you saying. They just cannot and will not take the chance.

She has been in previous debates.

She didn’t light a fire under her campaign then.

There is zero indication that it would happen now.

I get it though. The concern that is being shown for a person that no one here is going to vote for is precious.

Calling it concern is silly. I’m commenting. The DNC can make these rules for whatever reason they like, it’s their sandbox. I along with millions watched Kamala fade under Tulsi’s attacks on stage. The DNC won’t let her get a chance to repeat anything like that with the two that are left.

Kamala Harris has a better chance of one day being a President with a D next to her name than Gabbard ever will.

She has no path to the nomination.

I’m sure you’re right that Kamala has a better chance especially if nobody repeats what Tulsi did to her in future debates.

I’m commenting specifically on the notion that she was ineffective in debates. Politics is crazy and messy -just look at the different rationales Bloomberg gave for getting in then staying in then leaving (stopping one/helping one/etc). If the DNC had assurances she’d solely attack Bernie, I’m betting they’d let her on stage. Of course I’m just hypothesizing about that.

Kamala Harris was never a front runner or a real contender. Neither is Gabbard.

The difference is that Harris has a much better chance of one day becoming President than Gabbard ever will.

I do find the concern about the DNC debate rules to be interesting when the main base of support for Gabbard seems to some Somoans and Republicans,

We’re just having a conversation here, I’m not concerned with how the DNC chooses. But are you honestly saying that the chance of effective attacks on the other candidates by Tulsi NEVER came to mind with the decision makers?

[westaussie]

She has 2 delegates. She was a dud of a candidate.

[hwyflier]

Anyone else see Tulsi at the UFC last night?

One of the greatest fights there ever was. And then, Tulsi showed up.

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

We’re just having a conversation here, I’m not concerned with how the DNC chooses. But are you honestly saying that the chance of effective attacks on the other candidates by Tulsi NEVER came to mind with the decision makers?

I understand that we are having a conversation.

I just find it interesting that the only people who are concerned about her getting on the debate stage are her handful of supporters and Fox News Republicans.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

The difference is that Harris has a much better chance of one day becoming President than Gabbard ever will.

Why??

[WuWei]

@LucyLou

@WuWei

How is she supposed to get delegates when they changed the rules to keep her out of the debate?

She was already in debates. Same as the others, didn’t win enough primaries or delegates to get anywhere.

So they didn’t change the rules to keep her out?

DNC moves to change debate rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dnc-scrambles-change-debate-threshold-after-gabbard-qualifies I guess the idea of young, energetic woman of color on the same stage as two aging white guys is too much for the DNC. Perhaps she may ask hard questions like “What day is it?” and “When did you meet a Communist dictator you didn’t like?” If the DNC changes the rules to exclude Tusli, does it remove any pretense of fairness to the Democrats presidential selection process? Or do the ends justify …

[conan]

You know why they don’t want her? I think she can’t be manipulated into payoffs and bribery.

I guess a principle liberals has no place in democrat party.

That’s why they don’t want her.

[Jezcoe]

@conan

You know why they don’t want her? I think she can’t be manipulated into payoffs and bribery.

I guess a principle liberals has no place in democrat party.

That’s why they don’t want her.

The fact that she can’t convince people to vote for her is doing more to keep her from the nomination than anything

[conan]

No…I think they want someone that signs off on goverment abuse, corruption and extortion.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@conan

You know why they don’t want her? I think she can’t be manipulated into payoffs and bribery.

I guess a principle liberals has no place in democrat party.

That’s why they don’t want her.

The fact that she can’t convince people to vote for her is doing more to keep her from the nomination than anything

They won’t let her debate, called her a Russian stooge…

[Jezcoe]

@conan

No…I think they want someone that signs off on goverment abuse, corruption and extortion.

Gabbard has convinced enough people to vote to gain exactly two delegates.

She has been ineffective at convincing enough people to vote for her to gain a viable path to the nomination.

Still, I find this amusing that the people who are mostly concerned about this are Republicans.

[Medicswife2002]

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

We’re just having a conversation here, I’m not concerned with how the DNC chooses. But are you honestly saying that the chance of effective attacks on the other candidates by Tulsi NEVER came to mind with the decision makers?

I understand that we are having a conversation.

I just find it interesting that the only people who are concerned about her getting on the debate stage are her handful of supporters and Fox News Republicans.

Sure… I’ll agree Republicans are voicing opinions but they’re not the only ones. Bernie fans wanted her there too in case she could help their candidate. You know- politics.

Whoever is asking aside, do you believe Tulsi’s possible attacks were considered when they changed the rules? Do you think its possible they worried she may land blows on Joe? Politics is interesting to me- safe bet it is to most of us who are here.

[conan]

She’s not getting campaign donations because they know she can’t be bribed.

That’s how the system works. You either have to be too stupid and not know that you’re being manipulated or corrupt as hell to win the democrat nomination.

Joe Biden is patsy for corrupt establishment…and that’s fact.

[Jezcoe]

@conan

She’s not getting campaign donations because they know she can’t be bribed.

That’s how the system works. You either have to be too stupid and not know that you’re being manipulated or corrupt as hell to win the democrat nomination.

Joe Biden is patsy for corrupt establishment…and that’s fact.

Crazy to think that a campaign that cannot raise any money nor get a significant amount of votes doesn’t have a place on the debate stage.

Crazy I tell you.

You can say what you want about Biden, but my opinion… for he is not my first choice… is that there is a want by a good portion of the electorate to get back to a place of normalcy and not the constant chaos that has been a marker of the Trump administration.

Seeing that Biden’s base is in Older, Southern Blacks… it is hard to make a huge case that he didn’t make a case to people to come out and vote for him over all the other candidates.

Gabbard has not made that case. She has been inneffectual at building support and has zero chance to get the nomination. Her play is to act as a spoiler… but she seriously doesn’t have enough support to even do that.

[Jezcoe]

@Medicswife2002

@Jezcoe

@Medicswife2002

We’re just having a conversation here, I’m not concerned with how the DNC chooses. But are you honestly saying that the chance of effective attacks on the other candidates by Tulsi NEVER came to mind with the decision makers?

I understand that we are having a conversation.

I just find it interesting that the only people who are concerned about her getting on the debate stage are her handful of supporters and Fox News Republicans.

Sure… I’ll agree Republicans are voicing opinions but they’re not the only ones. Bernie fans wanted her there too in case she could help their candidate. You know- politics.

Whoever is asking aside, do you believe Tulsi’s possible attacks were considered when they changed the rules? Do you think its possible they worried she may land blows on Joe? Politics is interesting to me- safe bet it is to most of us who are here.

I honestly think that the DNC is seeing the shakeout after super tuesday and seeing that this is a two man race.

They are treating it as such.

[conan]

Why are libs afraid to look at other options?

Does she not give them that?

As it stands you have corrupt senile old man and old commie. It’s mind boggling that those are your two choices. And it shows just how far gone the democrat party has become.

As for Gabbard…she gives you alternatives, a different direction…and new chance to remake your beloved party. But the party wants none of it. They have two fractions, one that wants socialism with very strong central goverment and elite members that wants goverment to line their pockets.

[Jezcoe]

@conan

Why are libs afraid to look at other options?

Does she not give them that?

As it stands you have corrupt senile old man and old commie. It’s mind boggling that those are your two choices. And it shows just how far gone the democrat party has become.

As for Gabbard…she gives you alternatives, a different direction…and new chance to remake your beloved party. But the party wants none of it. They have two fractions, one that wants socialism with very strong central goverment and elite members that wants goverment to line their pockets.

I find it hilarious that people who would never vote for Gabbard in a million years are campaigning so hard for her.

It is almost like it is all so transparent.